Davenport v. State

The trial court properly exercised its discretion under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-94 subsection a in finding that the out-of-state witness, whom the defendant wished to subpoena, was not a material witness.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

We briefly summarize the procedural and factual history in this case, which is set out more fully in Davenport v. State, 313 Ga. App. 745 722 SE2d 457 2012 “Davenport III” and Davenport v. State, 303 Ga. App. 401 693 SE2d 510 2010 “Davenport I”.

Following her conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol per se, Davenport filed an appeal to this Court, arguing that the trial court erred by denying her motion for an order authorizing the issuance of a subpoena to an out-of-state witness under the provisions of the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without the State.1 We affirmed the trial court’s denial of Davenport’s motion, finding no error in the trial court’s determination that the out-of-state witness was not “a necessary and material witness to the case.” Davenport I, 303 Ga. App. at 402. However, our Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded to this Court with direction in Davenport v. State, 289 Ga. 399, 404 711 SE2d 799 2011 “Davenport II”, and consistent with that opinion, we remanded Davenport’s case to the trial court to “apply the correct statute and revisit Davenport’s motion for an order authorizing the issuance of the out-of-state subpoena.” Davenport III, 313 Ga. App. at 745. Following a hearing at which it was agreed that the trial court would render its decision based on the evidence previously admitted on this issue, the trial court once again denied Davenport’s motion. Davenport filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court failed to consider the constitutional challenges she raised in her original motion. The trial court denied Davenport’s motion for reconsideration without elaboration, and Davenport timely filed the present appeal.2 As more fully set forth below, we now affirm.

Davenport v. State

The trial court properly exercised its discretion under former O.C.G.A. § 24-10-94 subsection a in finding that the out-of-state witness, whom the defendant wished to subpoena, was not a material witness.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report